On Mon, 8 May 2000 04:59:57 -0700 Robert W Meyers writes: > Would not the article most naturally refer to the context, > the first verse of the chapter, "our gathering together > unto Him?" > > Kenneth Wuest renders he apostasia in 2 Thess. 2:3 as: > "the aforementioned departure" referring to vs. 1. > > It would seem to me that the "rebellion" interpretation is > contextual nonsense. There is no precedent for such > a rebellion, at this stage, in the Pauline revelation; and > since "rebellions" are so common throughout all time, > it would be far to nebulous to have any real meaning > to the comfort of the Thessalonians. The problem with taking hH APOSTASIS in 2 Thess 2:3 as a reference to "the aforementioned departure" of v. 1 is that this would render Paul's argument nonsensical, double-talk. He would then be saying: concerning the departure (v. 1), that will not occur until the departure takes place first (v. 3). Huh? Paul Dixon --- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu